where is the heartbeat in the Balanchine legacy?
Posted 26 May 2002 - 06:46 PM
She calls for more dancers who worked with Balanchine to take over rehearsals. Of the ten people listed in the program as assistant ballet masters and teachers (in addition to Martins), only one, Russell Kaiser, did not work with Balanchine (and I don't believe he rehearses Balanchine ballets anyway). Homans ignores a couple of important considerations in the choice of such people. One is that the head of the company, be it Peter Martins or anyone else, must be the ultimate authority on the company's style, and he cannot have people working with him who have strong contrary ideas, or who—pace Farrell fans—have personalities strong enough to encourage a following that might threaten this authority. In addition, Balanchine, like any artist, was always changing elements of his style, and a member of the NYCB of 1952 is going to remember ballets being danced very differently from a member from 1962, or 1972. Martins has, understandably, chosen to preserve the style that he remembers (circa 1967-1983), and has gathered other dancers from that era to help him. Even if Homans prefers an earlier style (and I doubt she remembers it—she was, I believe, a student at SAB in the 1980s), earlier generations of NYCB dancers are retiring and dying out. Villella himself is in his sixties.
What I do think is a problem at NYCB is the fact that the company's real energy these days is directed towards new repertory while the existing repertory, Robbins as well as Balanchine, is not treated as very important. Result: a certain ho-hum attitude that comes across in performance. If the dancers believed that doing well in a Balanchine ballet would get them promoted, we'd see a change in a hurry. The breakdown of the casting hierarchy in the Balanchine rep, something that Calliope mentioned a couple of months ago, is part and parcel of this neglect. (For those who don't remember this thread, Calliope mentioned that roles—even corps roles— that used to take dancers years to get are now given away to newcomers. There's no sense that it's a privilege, an achievement, to be in the ensemble of Concerto Barocco or Theme & Variations, as opposed to lowly Swan Lake or everybody's-in-it Stars & Stripes.)
Another problem, which the company has always had, is the pressure involved in doing seven performances a week and fifty or so ballets a season. When Martins first took over, he reduced the number of ballets performed, but it's long since been back up to fifty. I don't know why he did this, but it pretty much prevents any ballet from being as carefully rehearsed as it should be, whoever the coaches are.
Posted 09 June 2002 - 04:39 PM
Posted 27 May 2002 - 06:45 AM
His ballets depend so much on perfect timing. That was lacking when I saw 'The Concert' last year. I went to dress rehearsal and saw that the problem was not for lack of trying, but I realized that Mr. Robbins had been so specific and in control of his work that no one can do the job he did.
Balanchine on the other hand was so free and generous with his work in general. It is well known that he was always changing his choreography to suit different dancers, and giving his work away to other companies, etc.
I went to opening night of the spring season last year, as the companion of Vicky Simon. It was an All Balanchine program and I thought the company looked exquisite and impeccable. (I am a spacing freak) and this was obviously a well rehearsed performance.
At the first intermission I went with Ms Simon to meet Barbara Horgan and some others that were not in "Peter's Family". Never the less very important people were there. I met Suki Schorer for the first time. The elegant Karin Von Aroldingen asked Vicki Simon: "As the expert on 'The Four Temperaments' what did you think?" Vicky Simon said: "Very good, maybe just a bit too hard edged".
I thought about that and realized that dancing a little hard edged is more the norm these days, so if that is the only criticism, this ballet is doing quite well.
I still hear Mr. Balanchine's voice on the Balanchine Part 1 and 2 for PBS, saying that his works will look different when he is gone.
Posted 26 May 2002 - 12:10 PM
Posted 27 May 2002 - 08:56 AM
When I did a study of Agon a while back, I looked at extant representations of the ballet over 40 years, the majority done in his lifetime. There are small changes in every single version, and some major changes as well made by Balanchine. By 1972 at the Stravinsky Festival, Melissa Hayden was prodding Balanchine to go over the male duet to bring it more to the style of the original; she felt he had lost interest. When I saw her coach the ballet in '00, however, she set the male duet from a tape from '73, rather than the earliest version available from '60, and there are many changes between the two.
I'm not advocating carelessness or a perfunctory restaging, but ballets are also not stone, or digital recordings. Their texts are not absolutely stable. The person resetting any ballet takes responsibility as an interpreter. And the moment they do, someone else will take issue with it.
Posted 27 May 2002 - 04:50 PM
Posted 27 May 2002 - 08:17 PM
I can't argue with people's recollections from the time, I will say one has to sift through a great many contradictory ones and decide whom one believes. No, all opinions are not created equal, but I do think in the instant case we have several people with legitimate claims to expertise, including Martins and Farrell. I've seen work from both of them that was excellent and work from both of them that was luckluster.
Posted 27 May 2002 - 12:10 AM
I think it's important that the company try to find a new direction, and new repertory. That's as it should be. Life goes on. Martins seems intent on preserving and creating for the Balanchine dancer. But the Balanchine legacy is just too immense. The work is too great. I wonder if the Balanchine rep is treated with maybe too great a respect in restaging at home - that ithe original intent gets stifled in the desire to preserve it as perfectly as possible. Ballets become mechanical and do lose their heart when treated this way (re--staging of works of Tudor come to mind). I agree that I've seen Balanchine works performed with great artistry outside of State Theater, and maybe that's as it should be as well. I don't think the Balanchine rep will die if it resides with others outside of New York for awhile. And when Martins, Farrell and Hayden and Villella are gone, what then?
Posted 28 May 2002 - 07:37 PM
Posted 30 May 2002 - 12:58 PM
It's interesting that Homans edits Lincoln Kirstein right out of the history of NYCB and of SAB. This is rather consistent with the "Hagiography of Mr. B," Balanchine as "Genius" element of her article. But in fact I think the colaboration between Kirstein and Balanchine is one of the keys to understanding the history of the Company.
Re Martins -- The fact that we can recognize Balanchine's company in the company that exists today; that the Ballets continue to be performed -- sometimes the better, sometimes the worse for wear, but still recognizably themselves -- is a major tribute to Peter Martins' leadership. Look at the Royal Ballet and its Ashton repertory by way of contrast and Thank Heaven we had Martins here and not some American version of Kenneth MacMillain to take over the legacy.
Posted 26 May 2002 - 10:46 AM
I think it's inevitable when someone passes on and there wasn't an "obvious" choice for someone to take over, it's always controversial. But times are far different now than they were back when Mr. B was alive. There's no cold war anymore, ballet has become a money making machine, when (at least I think) back then it was expected not to make much money. The Nutcracker now competes with $10 Harry Potter movie tickets.
What I've always had a hard time with at NYCB is why we don't/can't see a NEW Balanchine piece brought back. The coming back ballets they feature are usually only out the rep for a few seasons. The 93 Balanchine Celebration was so magnificent b/c it brought pieces up that weren't seen (and haven't since been seen) in ages.
I think the toll of losing Stanley Williams will have a far greater impact on the next generation. Gone is a master of a teacher.
But, alas, the Balanchine legacy at NYCB may be stale but as noted, it is quite nice that the rest of the country is enjoying it as it should be.
Posted 29 May 2002 - 01:27 AM
Posted 29 May 2002 - 07:38 AM
I think it was always intended to be a workshop for new choreography, wasn't it?
Posted 02 June 2002 - 02:46 PM
I'm not sure there's ever a "good" time for criticism, but it also is press, and sometimes the bad press brings people in as well.
I doubt the article really had any influence except to maybe spark conversation.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):